Round The World
New
Delhi, 2 July 2013
16th Sino-India
Border Talks
MORE
HYPE, LITTLE SUBSTANCE
By Shreya
Upadhyay
Research Scholar School of
International Studies, JNU
The 16th round of India-China border
talks which concluded recently ran along familiar lines of hype and hustle and little
substance.
While India
persisted with the need for maintaining peace in the region, China responded
with the obvious cliché of friendship and cooperation. In an attempt to
convince New Delhi, the Chinese interlocutors
stated that Beijing
was ready to “break new ground” to resolve the dispute.
However, to expect a speedy settlement on the issue
would be naive given the way the nature of the Sino-Indian border dispute has
meshed over the years.
Undeniably, the rapid expansion of Chinese military
power, modernisation of its infrastructure in Tibet and the ‘string of pearls’
approach aimed at encircling India, has tilted the balance on the frontier heavily
in favour of Beijing. In contrast, New
Delhi’s border infrastructure looks primitive.
Pertinently, by building new railroads, airports
and highways in Tibet, China is now in a position to rapidly move
additional forces and heavy weaponry to the border to strike at India at a time
of its choosing.
Needless to say, India is still years away from
matching the current Chinese military build-up capability. True, lately New Delhi has started
responding by modernising its military but it has only exacerbated tensions
between the two neighbours.
The Chinese Army is unlikely to end aggressive
patrolling on the border. On its part, India
will continue to match China’s
military capabilities on the ground but seems to have failed in defining a game
plan along-with pursuing clearly laid out objectives.
Significantly, the maximum New Delhi has been able to articulate on the
vexatious border issue has been bringing into focus the need to maintain
peace and tranquillity on the long and hotly contested frontier in recent
months. In fact, this thought line prevailed in the current round of talks as
well.
On the face of it, the Summit was crucial for two reasons.
Primarily, it was the first after the leadership transition in China. But more
important, the three-week long standoff between the Chinese and Indian Army in the
Ladakh region in May brought into sharp view the problems brewing on the
disputed frontier.
Interestingly, the Indian side still seems confused
whether the Chinese incursion was a political decision or the People’s
Liberation Army of China acted on its own without consulting its Government.
There are also prospects that the adventurism was
the brainchild of the local Chinese Army commanders. Notwithstanding, New Delhi continued to
play down the incident asserting that it involved only a few soldiers who were
not heavily armed.
Undoubtedly, the Chinese incursion amounted to
violating the decades-old standard operating patrolling procedures. Remember, both
sides have been carrying out patrols in the disputed areas up to their claim
lines, which are overlapping. As the Line of Actual Control (LAC) has never
been demarcated, patrols often encounter each other, but neither side had
recently taken the step of erecting a tent in a disputed territory.
Notably, Chinese Premier Li Keqiang visit to India shortly
after the incident injected a brief momentum to defuse the crisis. No matter, these
incidents reflect how the Sino-India frontier has re-emerged as a major
military flashpoint in Asia.
Irrefutably, the border issue is bedevilled by
difference over the length and ambit of the boundary. New
Delhi’s position is that its border is 4,117 km long starting from
the India-China-Myanmar junction in the Eastern sector to the North-Western end
of Pakistan occupied Kashmir (PoK).
But Beijing avers that
its border is roughly 2000-km long and does not accept Arunachal, PoK and Jammu and Kashmir as sovereign Indian
Territory. It claims the entire Arunachal as its land and Kashmir
as disputed between India
and Pakistan.
Recall, the boundary negotiations began during
former Prime Minister Vajpayee’s visit to China in 2003. This led to the
appointment of Special Representatives on both sides to impart momentum to the
talks. Currently National Security Adviser Shivshankar Menon and Beijing’s State Councillor
Yang Jiechi are the special representatives.
Plainly, no immediate deliverables came out of the latest
talks. However, on the brighter side, both neighbours seemed upbeat about the
engagement being on the right track. An important positive statement made
by Jiechi may well determine the next course of Sino-Indian engagement in the
coming months.
Said he, “I stand ready to work with you to build
on the work of our predecessors and break new ground to strive for the
settlement of the China-India boundary question and to make greater progress in
the China-India strategic and cooperative partnership in the new period.” Adding,
that the two special representatives have a lofty mission and heavy
responsibilities.
Notably, China watchers in the Foreign Ministry
also appear optimistic. In its statement it underscored, “The Menon-Yang talks
were held in a productive, constructive and forward-looking atmosphere and
these discussions constitute the second step of a three- stage process.”
Clearly, the Special Representatives
from both sides highlighted points on including possible additional confidence
building measures, ways and means of strengthening existing mechanisms for
consultation and coordination on border affairs and methodology to enhance the
efficiency of communications between the two. Along-with focusing on the
proposed Border Defence Cooperation to avert episodes like the Depsang faceoff.
However,
as for the actual boundary negotiation, whether both sides made any progress
towards a framework resolution remains unclear considering the secrecy with
which the talks were held. New Delhi and Beijing still have to
clarify where their perceptions of the LAC lie. The inability to do so leaves
open the possibility of recurrence incidents like Depsang.
All in all, the boundary talks
are currently in the second of a three-stage process. Both sides are now
negotiating a framework to resolve the dispute in all sectors against the
backdrop of its 2005 agreement on political parameters.
Specially, as over the years
there has been looming scepticism across the border over boundary talks being
deadlocked. Both sides are known to have serious differences in interpreting
the LAC agreement, thereby making it virtually impossible for them to reach a
final settlement.
As the final stage involves
delineating the border in maps and on the ground, confessed National Security
Advisor Menon, “The present stage is the most complex as it is what will
actually translate into the Line of Control.” ------ INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|